The devil is in the details (bombing campaign)

[I had a bad name 99]

In regards to the American bombing strategy in WW2, Eisenhower actually refused to give the go ahead of carpet bombing in support of troops. This was because hundreds of American soldiers in the 9th and 30th divisions were wounded and killed by friendly fire (bombers) when they were trying to force a hole in the German lines after the Normandy Invasion. I don’t believe it was given again until the battle of the bulge... for obvious reasons (hiding panzers) and panic.

Admittedly, I am an Internet junkie and rarely read WW2 books in-depth. The last book I read was five years ago -- Allied invasion of Italy by Antony Beevor, which was a great read by the way. What I meant by carpet bombing was that I will bomb the infrastructure before the troops started to move. I believe before the beachhead was formed in D-day, the Allied bombers (rocket-firing Typhoon, P-47 Thunderbolt) were destroying railways, shooting up key infrastructure. The French Resistance also helped in the effort. This prevents the enemy divisions from immediately converging on the beachheads once formed. Remember at this time, the Germans were unsure where would be the main beachhead. Of course, once your units started to engage the enemy, all strategic bombing should stop. CAS should be used instead.

in regards to HOI4... I agree that it kinda makes no sense to damage the infrastructure because you are hindering your future advance. In order to fix the supply problem you are going to need to fix the surrounding infrastructure which will allow the enemy to dig in, regroup and obviously cause you further problems at a loss of man power and equipment.

This is a fairly good point. Destroying infrastructure does slow down my troops and let enemy time to dig in. But conversely, the enemy will also get less supplies from damaged infrastructure. And if I have prepared a strong panzer spearhead, the entrenched enemy should be of little problem. Not to mention a strong CAS support.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

For a good reference, battle of Monte Cassino is a demonstration of Allied overwhelming firepower. The Allied advance up Italy was slow, yes, but they are still gaining ground.

Wikipedia:

"American bombers dropped 1,400 tons of high explosives, creating widespread damage"

In early-mid game, I rarely used strat bombing. In late game, I have the firepower to do that, like the Allies.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

When I look at @EliteWehrmacht 's idea for the infrastructure bombing of Siam with the idea of how it can be right, instead of wrong, I suddenly see something viable there.

For one thing, this is a very late game, so the AI has many more and much better divisions than most players are used to playing against, such as fully equipped and teched out 40width divisions.

Second, Siam is a circle. there is no escape for the enemy. Bombing the infrastructure, sure hurts @EliteWehrmacht 's forces, but it might cause a much greater pain on Siam. As Siam retreats more and more troops into a smaller and bombed out infrastructure, the supply and attrition situation for Siam could escalate into a catastrophe. All of @EliteWehrmacht 's forces may not be able to advance, but as the results show, enough could.

Sometimes, a win can be achieved by not so much the methodical use of all your forces, but by causing more logistic pain on the bad guys than on your own troops. If you know you are pushing a numerically superior army into bad logistics, then that army has to spread deep leaving fewer divisions on the front line to face your attack, or risk high attrition to supply mechanics. Either choice they make is a win for you. There are not many places like that, but they exist.

Thanks for helping me ... to see my own point of view! I was wondering why it is so controversial about bombing infrastructure ahead. To me, it is common sense that if you have overwhelming firepower, there is nothing wrong with bombing enemy to crap. Yes, your advance may be slow, but you caused far more hurt to enemy than yourself. As long as time is on your side.

But I do agree that it does slow down the advance dramatically, making it harder and longer for one to advance...

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Another question, is there a manpower loss from strat bombing? I thought it only slows your divisions down. No friendly fire in this case.

 

[General Von Trapp]

Yeh infrastructure I think at the moment is supposed to represent railways as such but I think it should be separate. Have I read somewhere that they are adding that in? Would be cool... maybe standard infrastructure but then this bonus that you get from railway transport which you can target separately.

Then in effect your bombing convoys and not blowing all the tarmac over the place and losing your precious tanks in sinkholes! (Slowing them in game).

Yeh so the advantage of infrastructure bombing comes with small enclosed spaces.

This probably needs one of those isolated tests to see how it works. An advance to Warsaw for instance with a representation of damaged infrastructure and one without.

Who would get to Warsaw first!

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Yeh infrastructure I think at the moment is supposed to represent railways as such but I think it should be separate. Have I read somewhere that they are adding that in? Would be cool... maybe standard infrastructure but then this bonus that you get from railway transport which you can target separately.

Then in effect your bombing convoys and not blowing all the tarmac over the place and losing your precious tanks in sinkholes! (Slowing them in game).

Yeh so the advantage of infrastructure bombing comes with small enclosed spaces.

This probably needs one of those isolated tests to see how it works. An advance to Warsaw for instance with a representation of damaged infrastructure and one without.

Who would get to Warsaw first!

Actually, maybe I communicate wrongly. When I started this thread, I did not consider consequences like hindering my own troops' advance (it is expected to be inevitable, given overwhelming troop strength on my side). My idea is simple: you have lots of firepower on your side? Use it to bomb and soften enemy positions ahead before your troops advance. Never expect so many complexities like supply problem and enemy digging in.

Why I have to keep strat bomb is because I hope to keep the enemy factories and airbases down, so their troops can't recover their supplies. The slow advance is supposed to be a side effect -- unfortunate but not serious.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Okay, sorry guys. I did a test run with invasion of Siam. Other than forts, strat bombing did little other than obstructing the movement of units unnecessarily. It is wise to just use CAS.

Edit: For some reason though, I still get 7/10 infrastructure damage.

 

[General Von Trapp]

Just a note also... we kinda know WW2 strategic bombing was highly inaccurate and that is kinda implemented in the game. You really need to max out that bombing doctrine and use advisors for it to be devastating.

For instance the UK has that night bombing advisor which goes well with the night bombing doctrine. Not sure what doctrine you have @EliteWehrmacht?

Thanks for the test feedback...

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Okay, I still held some belief that strat bombing does help, because historically the Western Allies did that exactly.

Bombing of Normandy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

For all the talk about liberating French towns and cities, they ended up destroying a large part of them -- including Caen.


It is just that Thailand is an overkill in this case because it is not heavily infrastructured. Edit: And the enemy is weak as well...

 

[I had a bad name 99]

https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/normans/bombings

" In order to prevent the arrival of reinforcements on the front line, the Allies destroy all the key points allowing a possible crossing of the opposing troops. "

This is what i am talking about.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Just a note also... we kinda know WW2 strategic bombing was highly inaccurate and that is kinda implemented in the game. You really need to max out that bombing doctrine and use advisors for it to be devastating.

For instance the UK has that night bombing advisor which goes well with the night bombing doctrine. Not sure what doctrine you have @EliteWehrmacht?

Thanks for the test feedback...

You are welcome. I usually choose air superiority or ground support.

 

[SophieX]

" In order to prevent the arrival of reinforcements on the front line, the Allies destroy all the key points allowing a possible crossing of the opposing troops. "

This is what i am talking about.

I will agree with that point, when it is ensured, that both sides have the same "way of thinking".
( One side often were surprised, that the enemy does things otherwise, than they had expected; which, for me, is an indication, that their "way of thinking" was often totally different.

It could be a dangerous trap, to presume the enemy thinks like I do.


But nevertheless, to "damage" the enemy is never totally wrong.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Okay, this time, I invaded Canada without resorting to strat bombing. Works well, thanks to the advice. Able to advance quickly without getting stalled too much. The CAS is good for pushing back enemy.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Invasion of USA seems to be going well. I also took special care not to damage the infrastructure too much, except the forts and key cities where I nuked.

 

[Harin]

Judging by the date of your game, it looks like your troops will make it to Woodstock in time.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

I still have USSR to deal with. After this, hopefully can end the game in 1970s. Don't want to drag until 1980s...

Edit: Where do you guys get all the meme jokes? I never heard of Woodstock till now...

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Alright. I get the joke. You are referring to the Big Apple. I already got it, now reaching Washington...

 

[Harin]

I still have USSR to deal with. After this, hopefully can end the game in 1970s. Don't want to drag until 1980s...

Edit: Where do you guys get all the meme jokes? I never heard of Woodstock till now...

If you have never heard of Woodstock, then there is a fair chance you will live long enough to see HOI5.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

If you have never heard of Woodstock, then there is a fair chance you will live long enough to see HOI5.

I am not an American. And you must be the king of sarcasm.

 

[Harin]

I am not an American. And you must be the king of sarcasm.

Thanks for taking it in the fun it was intended. I assumed you were not an American, but I enjoy your sharing of your games, so I was trying to be light hearted. My humor was really aimed at Paradox, since they are not the fastest in delivering content to an eager purchasing customer base. I sometimes feel it will be my children's children that sees the developers fix the shuffling of troops.